APPPENDICES A – Historic Preservation Component A-1 – A -9 B – Transportation Component B-1 – B-4 C – Coastal Management Component C-1 – C-30 D – Wireless Service Facilities Component D-1 – D-3 E – Open Space Preservation Component E-1 – E-86 Historic Preservation Component The Historic Preservation Report, Town of East Hampton, and Phase One: Reconnaissance Survey and Phase Two: Intensive Survey, prepared by Robert J. Hefner in, respectively, March 1989 and August 1990, together serve as the Historic Preservation Component of this Comprehensive Plan. It is noted that since that report was prepared, several of the recommendations contained in those reports were realized. A local Historic Preservation ordinance has been adopted, and four historic districts and one individual landmark were designated under this ordinance: Amagansett Historic District; Bluff Road Historic District; Springs Historic District; the Montauk Association Historic District; the Conklin House Historic Landmark, and the Cedar Point Lighthouse Historic Landmark. The Architectural Review Board serves as the Historic Preservation Commission. Several past instances of rezoning, as well as areas of proposed rezoning in this Town of East Hampton Comprehensive Plan, serve to make the zoning more consistent with the goals of historic preservation. To further preservation goals, the Town has applied and utilized the Cluster provision in Chapter 110 of the East Hampton Town Code, scenic easements, purchase of development rights and façade easements. As per the recommendation for listing of historic properties and districts on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, since 1990 eight additional properties have been listed on the State and National Registers: Gardiner’s Island Windmill, H.M.S. Culloden in the waters off of Montauk, Miss Amelia’s Cottage in Amagansett, St. Thomas’ Chapel in Amagansett, Jeremiah Baker House in Amagansett, Ambrose Parsons House in Springs, Pollack/Krasner House in Springs, and the Cedar Point Lighthouse in East Hampton. In addition to the historic contexts identified in the 1989-1990 Historic Preservation Report, several other historic contexts have been identified in this Comprehensive Plan: Cultural and Historic Landscapes; Maritime History; Cemeteries; Education; Artist’s Houses and Studios; and Modern Architecture 1930 – 1950. Recommendations 53 through 56 of the Town-wide recommendations reinforce the goals articulated in the Historic Preservation Report of 1989-1990, including the need to continually review and update the inventory of historic resources every five years. Wainscott recommendations 5 and 5a; East Hampton recommendations 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45, 48, and 53; Amagansett recommendations 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 24, 27, 29, 31, and 32; Springs recommendations 6, 7, 8, 9, 9a, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 35; and Montauk recommendations 13, 16, 17, and 25, are identified as serving to protect historic and cultural resources, including the historic setting of resources. The following is an executive summary of Phase One and Phase Two of the Historic Preservation Report, Town of East Hampton prepared by Robert J. Hefner in 1989-1990, including a summary of the recommendations made in this report. The full report is incorporated by reference into this Town of East Hampton Comprehensive Plan. A - 1 Executive Summary Introduction Over the more than three centuries since its settlement by New England colonists, the Town of East Hampton has developed a rich and varied historic landscape. The early buildings grouped at the centers of Wainscott, Springs and Amagansett and the scattered individual farms evoke the tradition of these rural farming and fishing communities. Some of East Hampton’s summer colonies are now a century old. The historic buildings in the rural communities and in the early summer colonies, in their individual settings and grouped in districts of special character, give East Hampton a vivid sense of place. The East Hampton Town Planning Board and Planning Department commissioned the Historic Preservation Report in order to identify the historic resources within the Town so that they might be considered in comprehensive town planning. Survey Methodology Both the Phase One: Reconnaissance Survey and Phase Two: Intensive Survey, of the Town of East Hampton Historic Preservation Report, was prepared in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Office’s guidelines for Historic Preservation surveys. The Phase One Reconnaissance Survey included all of the Town of East Hampton exclusive of the Incorporated Village of East Hampton and the incorporated Village of Sag Harbor. A historic overview and historic contexts were developed based on research of secondary sources and a survey of historic maps. The field survey was comprehensive for pre-1940 buildings and structures. The only major areas of the Town not surveyed in the Phase I reconnaissance survey were Gardiner’s Island and the Georgica Association in Wainscott. All pre-1850 buildings with any degree of integrity were listed individually. Buildings dating after 1850 were listed individually if they: (1) retained good integrity and were a good representative of a property type; (2) lacked integrity but contributed to understanding the variation within a property type or would contribute to evaluating other buildings of a property type; or (3) if they represented a rare property type. Buildings which did not have the above characteristics were listed within the street-by street narrative. The survey listed individually 236 buildings or groups of buildings. The reconnaissance survey recommended that properties that appeared to meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places be the subject of a further intensive level survey. The reconnaissance survey listed thirteen groups of buildings that appeared to warrant further investigation and documentation. The list of properties that appeared to warrant intensive survey was reviewed in the field with representatives of the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). These properties were assigned a priority rating that reflected their relative level of significance, their relative level of integrity, the degree to which they represented the central themes of their respective historic contexts, and the degree to which the properties might be threatened by development in the near future. This review resulted in a final list of properties to be included in the intensive level survey (Phase II). A - 2 For properties illustrating the historic context of East Hampton’s agrarian economy, the highest priority was given to potential historic districts for Wainscott and Gardiner’s Island. This was followed by the individual dwelling and farm complexes property types. The historic context of East Hampton’s resort economy appeared to be best represented by potential historic districts on Bluff Road and in the Devon Colony, both in Amagansett. This was followed by individual resort dwelling property types and service, social and recreational facilities associated with the historic districts. One further potential historic district, the Amagansett Village Historic District, which illustrated both the agrarian and the resort contexts, was included in the scope of the intensive level survey. The only group of dwellings in any of the above categories removed from the scope of the intensive survey was the Summer Cottages in the private Georgica Association in Wainscott as permission was not granted to enter the Association grounds for the purpose of conducting an inventory. Properties in Springs were documented on New York State building and district inventory forms in 1983. Updating the information on these forms was given a low priority relative to documenting new resources and such an effort was beyond the time and budget constraints of this project. Two groups of properties recommended for intensive survey received a low priority in the initial review and were removed from the scope of the survey because of time and budget constraints. These were (1) three properties associated with the Montauk common pasture, 1797-1870; and (2) thirty Montauk properties associated with Carl S. Fisher, 1924-1930. Property types identified in the Phase One Reconnaissance Survey as associated with themes of regional significance, the evaluation of which were beyond the scope of the East Hampton Town survey, included: 1. Properties associated with the theme of navigation: lighthouses and life-saving stations 2. Properties associated with the theme of military history: the ruins of the 1889 Spanish- American War Fort Tyler, and facilities of the World War II Harbor Defense of Long Island Sound. 3. Properties associated with the theme of communications: McKay Radio Station, Napeague. This resource should be evaluated in the context of the history and technology of international radio communications. 4. Properties associated with marine industries: Smith Meal Company. This resource should be evaluated in the context of the history of this industry on the eastern seaboard. A - 3 Development of Property Types Property types were developed for each of the two major historic contexts: East Hampton’s Agrarian Economy, 1639 – 1940; and East Hampton’s Resort Economy, 1870 – 1940. A description, a significance statement, and selection criteria were drafted for each property type that illustrated a central theme of the agrarian or resort context. The list of